5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Chişinău. He is a driver but at the time of the events was unemployed.
6.  He was suspected of having forged documents concerning the sale of an apartment in Chişinău and was summoned to appear at the Ministry of Internal Affairs for questioning on 21 December 2004.
7.  He complied with the summons and appeared before police officers N. T. and S.D. in their office, in the building of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The time of his arrival in the building of the Ministry is disputed between the parties. According to the applicant he arrived at about 9 a.m. while the Government maintains that he arrived at 1 p.m. According to the applicant, the two police officers tried to force him to confess and when he refused to comply beat him with rubber truncheons and punched him in the head. Following a punch to his right ear he lost consciousness for several minutes. The allegations of beatings are disputed by the Government. It is undisputed that the questioning took place. The length of the questioning is also disputed between the parties: according to the applicant it lasted for eight hours while the Government contend that the questioning lasted for only one hour. At the same time it is undisputed that the police officers did not make any record of the questioning on that day.
8.  The time of the applicant’s release is also disputed between the parties: the Government contend that he was released at about 2 p.m. while the applicant submits that he was released at approximately 5 p.m. It is, however, undisputed that he took a taxi from the front of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and went directly to his friend, V.P., with whom he had planned to go to Germany the next morning to inform him that he would not be able to go. Both the taxi driver and his friend noted the bruises on his face and were told by the applicant that he had been beaten up by the police in the building of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The applicant obtained the taxi driver’s card.
9.  The applicant felt ill during the night and the next morning, 22 December 2004, he went to the Emergency Hospital (Spitatlul de Urgenţă). The hospital’s register contains the following information:
“The patient was beaten up by police officers in the building of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on 21 December 2004 at 11.50 a.m. with loss of consciousness for several minutes. He complains of headache, nausea, vomiting and vertigo. Diagnosis: concussion and bruises to the face, upper lip, head and body.... The applicant refused to be hospitalised. Information has been transmitted to the General Police Station and received by D. under number 6196 at 8.35 p.m.”
10.  It appears that no action followed as a result of the Emergency Hospital’s informing the General Police Station about the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment at the hands of police officers.
11.  On the same day, 22 December 2004, at 4.45 p.m. the applicant was hospitalised in a military hospital. According to the applicant, he chose that hospital over the Emergency Hospital because it had cheaper services. It appears from the hospital’s register that the applicant gave the same account of events as at the Emergency Hospital about the beating received on 21 December 2004 in the building of the Ministry of Internal Affairs at the hands of two police officers. He was diagnosed with head trauma, multiple bruises to the body and head and post-traumatic deafness in the right ear. The applicant left hospital on 31 December 2004.
12.  On 5 January 2005 the applicant obtained a forensic report concerning his injuries. The report confirmed the previous diagnosis and stated that the injuries had been inflicted with blunt objects and that the findings of the medical examinations were compatible with the applicant’s account of the use of physical violence against him on 21 December 2004. The injuries were designated under the Criminal Code as light injuries, necessitating no more than twenty-one days of medical care.
13.  On 3 September 2005, during the investigation proceedings in the criminal case against the applicant, he complained to an investigator that he had been ill-treated on 21 December 2004. It appears that no action followed in respect of the applicant’s complaint.
14.  On 15 December 2005 the applicant wrote to the Prosecutor’s Office and complained that, having examined his criminal file on 14 December 2005, he had noted that it did not contain any information about his questioning of 21 December 2004 and that no action had been taken in respect of his ill-treatment on that date in spite of two complaints, one lodged by the hospital on 22 December 2004 and his own complaint of 3 September 2005. He asked that criminal proceedings be initiated against the two police officers who had ill-treated him and joined to his request a copy of the forensic medical report of 5 January 2005.
15.  On 15 January 2006 the Prosecutor’s Office decided to take no action in respect of the applicant’s ill-treatment complaint after finding it ill-founded. In a decision of the same date it was stated that the accused police officers had admitted having questioned the applicant; however, they denied having ill-treated him and since the applicant had only complained about the alleged ill-treatment one year later, it was obvious that he had the intention to protract and hinder the criminal proceedings against himself. It appears that the applicant was not heard and no mention of his previous complaints or the forensic report was made. The applicant appealed against this decision and argued that no assessment had been made of the medical report. He also submitted that he had a witness who could confirm the fact of his ill-treatment.
16.  On 24 March 2006 the Centru District Court upheld the applicant’s appeal and quashed the prosecutor’s decision. It found, inter alia, that the Prosecutor’s Office had not sufficiently investigated the medical evidence presented by the applicant.
17.  On 11 May 2006 the applicant was heard by a prosecutor. He reiterated the facts presented earlier in his complaint and informed the prosecutor about the taxi driver who could testify as to his state in the evening of 21 December 2004.
18.  On an unspecified date a prosecutor questioned the taxi driver who had taken the applicant from the Ministry of Internal Affairs (see paragraph 8 above). The taxi driver stated that he took the applicant in the evening of 21 December 2004 from the corner of the street on which the Ministry of Internal Affairs was located. The applicant’s clothes were dirty and dusty and at the beginning he thought that the applicant was not sober. However, later he was told by the applicant that he had been beaten up by two police officers in the building of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The applicant showed him signs of beatings on his face, namely a swollen ear and bruises around it. Before leaving the car, the applicant asked for his card and he gave it to him.
19.  On an unspecified date a prosecutor questioned the applicant’s friend whom the latter visited in the evening of 21 December 2004 (see paragraph 8 above). The applicant’s friend confirmed that in the evening of 21 December 2004 between 8 and 10 p.m. the applicant had come to his home to announce to him that he was not able to travel to Germany the next day. The applicant had bruises on his face and told him that he had been beaten up the same day by police officers in the building of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
20.  On 7 July 2006 the Centru Prosecutor’s Office again dismissed the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment. Without giving any assessment of the medical reports and the statements of the taxi driver and the applicant’s friend it found the applicant’s complaint ill-founded because there was sufficient evidence to prove his guilt of the offence imputed to him and therefore his complaint about ill-treatment was a mere attempt to hinder and protract the criminal investigation against him. This was supported by the fact that the applicant had complained only one year after the alleged events. The applicant challenged this decision before the prosecutor’s hierarchical superior.
21.  On 29 January 2007 the applicant’s appeal was dismissed as ill-founded by a hierarchically superior prosecutor on identical grounds. The applicant challenged the decision in court.
22.  On 24 April 2007 the Centru District Court upheld the applicant’s appeal. It found, inter alia, that the prosecutors’ decisions lacked reasoning.
23.  On 29 June 2007 a prosecutor from the Centru Prosecutor’s Office again dismissed the applicant’s complaint. He stated, inter alia, that the accused police officers had admitted to questioning the applicant on 21 December 2004 only for one hour; however, they had denied having applied force to him. The statements of the taxi driver and of the applicant’s friend could not be accepted because they were not eyewitnesses to the beating but rather knew about the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment at the hands of police from what the applicant had told them. The police officers argued that it was impossible for them to ill-treat the applicant in their office because the Minister’s office was one floor above and if there had been shouts the Minister or other persons from the Ministry’s top echelons would have heard. Moreover, they did not have rubber truncheons in their office and the offence with which the applicant had been charged was not so serious as to justify ill-treating him. A colleague of the police officers also declared that the applicant was not ill-treated and that, during questioning, the door of the office was always open. The applicant appealed against this decision and argued that it was unlawful because the prosecutor had failed to examine objectively and completely all the circumstances of the case. The applicant submitted that the prosecutor had failed to notice that the police officers had failed to draw up a record of his detention and questioning of 21 December 2004.
24.  On 15 August 2007 his appeal was dismissed by the Centru District Court. The court found that the forensic report of 5 January 2005 did not prove the applicant’s ill-treatment because it had been drawn up twelve days after the alleged ill-treatment.
25.  The damage to the applicant’s right ear was so serious that it never recovered. The applicant submitted a medical report of 2007 stating that the loss of hearing in his right ear was irremediable and permanent.
26.  On an unspecified date the applicant requested a medical report from the Forensic Medicine Centre of the Ministry of Health Protection which concluded on 11 November 2008 that following the head trauma of 21 December 2004 the applicant had entirely lost the hearing in his right ear. According to Moldovan legislation the injury caused the applicant a loss of working capacity of twenty-five per cent. The applicant’s injury was redesignated under the Criminal Code as an injury of medium seriousness causing long-term health problems necessitating more than twenty-one days of medical care.